Support worker dismissed for refusing COVID-19 vaccine: employer's instruction was reasonable
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a support worker who refused to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, finding the employer acted reasonably.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-vaccination-policy
- #care-home-worker
- #gross-misconduct
- #medical-exemption
- #trade-union-certificate
- #government-exemption-scheme
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a support worker at a care home for vulnerable adults.
- The respondent introduced a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for all staff.
- The claimant refused to be vaccinated and did not apply for a government medical exemption.
- The claimant provided a self-certification from his trade union claiming exemption, which the respondent rejected.
- After multiple meetings and warnings, the claimant was summarily dismissed for failing to follow a reasonable management instruction.
- The claimant's appeal was unsuccessful.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a support worker at Meade Close care home.
-
Vaccination policy introduced
Respondent sent letter to staff about mandatory COVID vaccination policy.
-
GP letter obtained
Claimant obtained a letter from his GP citing anxiety about vaccinations.
-
First vaccination refusal meeting
Claimant attended informal meeting with Ms Brien and union rep; stated he would not be vaccinated.
-
Second vaccination meeting
Further meeting where claimant reiterated refusal; union requested reasonable adjustment.
-
Disciplinary outcome on other allegations
Claimant cleared of unrelated disciplinary allegations; no formal action.
-
Final vaccination refusal meeting
Claimant produced trade union exemption certificate; respondent deemed it insufficient.
-
Respondent requested government exemption application
Claimant given 48 hours to apply for government medical exemption; he did not comply.
-
Formal instruction to get vaccinated
Respondent issued reasonable management instruction to obtain vaccination within 4 weeks.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant attended disciplinary hearing; stated he would never get vaccinated or apply for exemption.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct (failure to follow reasonable management instruction).
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed dismissal; appeal was unsuccessful.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing conducted by Ms Glover; claimant attended with union rep.
-
Appeal dismissed
Claimant's appeal was turned down.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for failing to follow a reasonable management instruction to obtain a COVID-19 vaccination or a government medical exemption, and whether the dismissal was fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal, ruling that the respondent acted reasonably.
Key reasons:
- The vaccination policy was a reasonable response to protect vulnerable residents.
- The claimant refused to apply for a government medical exemption, relying instead on a trade union certificate which was not a valid exemption.
- The employer followed a fair procedure with multiple meetings and warnings.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can require staff to follow reasonable policies, including vaccination mandates, especially in care settings.
- A trade union certificate is not a substitute for a government-approved medical exemption.
- Employees who refuse to follow reasonable management instructions risk dismissal for gross misconduct.
- A fair process with warnings and opportunities to comply can protect an employer's decision to dismiss.
What this case shows
This case highlights the importance of following reasonable management instructions, particularly in sectors like care homes where vulnerable people are at risk. The support worker, with four years' service, refused to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy introduced by Salutem LD Bidco IV Limited. Despite multiple meetings and warnings, he did not apply for a government medical exemption, instead presenting a trade union certificate that the employer rightly rejected.
What the employer did right
The employer acted reasonably by introducing a clear policy, holding several meetings to discuss the claimant's concerns, and giving him time to comply. When the claimant refused, the employer issued a formal instruction and allowed four weeks to get vaccinated or obtain an exemption. The disciplinary process was thorough, and the appeal was handled fairly. The tribunal found that the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
Why this matters
This decision confirms that employers can enforce reasonable health and safety measures, especially where residents are vulnerable. Employees cannot rely on non-government exemptions to avoid complying with such policies. The case also shows that a fair procedure can protect an employer's decision to dismiss, even in sensitive situations involving personal beliefs about vaccination.
Similar cases
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.
Warehouse operative unfairly dismissed after mitigation ignored in conduct case
An employment tribunal found ASDA unfairly dismissed a warehouse operative with 18 years' service after failing to investigate his mitigation evidence, awarding £14,817 in compensation.
Bus driver dismissed after driving onto pavement to overtake: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after driving onto a pavement to overtake another bus. The tribunal rejected claims of race and religious discrimination.
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.